Development of a tool and an intervention program based on Cognitive Behavior Coaching (CBC) The 3rd World Congress on Positive Psychology in Los Angeles

1. Development of a tool and an intervention program based on Cognitive Behavior Coaching (CBC) ：The relationship between CBC and PGIS-II. YogaTOKUYOSHISyoichiIWASAKITohoku UniversityThe 3th World Congress on Positive Psychology

2. Objective
◆Cognitive Behavior Coaching (CBC) is a coaching method for assisting client’s Goal achievement and Personal Growth. ◆The present study was conducted for assessing the effectiveness of the intervention programapplying Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy(REBT), that was under development based on CBCwith semi-structured interview and self-report questionnaire. ◆We used Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II (PGIS-II) developed by Robitscheket al. (2012) as the self-report assessment toolbased on CounselingPsychologyand Positive Psychology.

3. Method of the experiment
(1)Participants (N=31) were randomlyassigned toCaochee, Coachand Control.
(2)Conditions ofthe intervention ◆Coacheefilled out the interview sheet and then was interviewed by the coach. ◆Coach interviewedthe coachee using the CBC. ◆Controldid not do anything during the intervention.
(3)The effect of the intervention was assessed with PGIS-II by comparing pre-and post-intervention scores.
◆Analysis Strategy: ANOVA, EffectSize (Cohens’d,Δ)

4. G-ABCDEFREBT extended modelG（Goals）：Goal setting. Agenda. A（Activating event) B（Beliefs） C（Consequences）：SituationD（Disputation）：CriticalthinkingE（Effective new approach）: Pick up 3. F（Future focus）：First step. Future forTime Limit & Time Management.
(Ellis, 1994; Palmer, 2007; Tokuyoshi, 2012)
⇒Wedeveloped the Interview sheet based on this theory.
IS-REBC :The Interview Sheet – Rational Emotive BehaviorCoaching

5. ■PGIS-II was made for a purposeofa Counselingthatnecessitates an approach based on a Personal Growth. 【16 items with 6-point Likertscale. 4 subscales】 ◆【Using Resources】：3items(e.g., “I ask for help when I try to change myself.”), ◆【Readiness for Change】: 4 items(e.g., “I can tell when I am ready to make specific changes in myself.”) ◆【Intentional Behavior】：4items(e.g., “I take every opportunity to grow as it comes up.”) ◆【Planfulness】：5 items(e.g., “I set realistic goals for what I want to change about myself.”) Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II (Robitschecket al., 2012)

6. Pre-Test
◆Coachee(n=12)
Coachee filled out the interview sheet (20 minute) .
He / She was questioned by the coach.(20 minute)
◆Control(n=8) Not do anything
◆AllocationRandomized (n=31)Mean age=44.7(SD=11.6)
Post-Test
◆Data analysis1: ANOVA：3conditions：Coachee，Coach，Control&Intervention phase(Pre, Post) 2: EffectSize(Cohen’s d,Glass Δ) ：It was derived from & Intervention phase(Pre, Post)
Intervention of Cognitive BehaviorCoaching
【Questionnaire】
PGIS-II(Robitscheck, 2012)
(PersonalGrowth Initiative Scale-II)
【Questionnaire】 PGIS-II
Figure Flow chart of this study.
◆Coach(n=11) SupportCoachee using coachee’sinterview sheet
Adult peopleInterview & Support

7. Result
◆３condition & Sex ：χ2(2)= 1.6, p = .44(no significant)
◆The ANOVA between PGIS-II total score and 3 conditions: F(2,28)=.08, p=.93 (no significant)
This Result showed no significant differences in 3 conditions
Woman
Man
Coachee
7
5
Coach
4
7
Control
5
3

8. Control
Coach
Coachee
Pre
4.1
4.2
4.2
Post
4.1
4.5
5.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
PGIS-IIScore ◆PGIS-II Total Score
◆Main effect：significant（F（1,28）=34.7, p<.001,ηG2=.09）
◆Interaction：significant（F（2,28）=15.9, p<.001,ηG2=.088）
Totalscore
Control
Coach
Coachee
cohen'd
-.01
0.62
1.51
Δ
-.01
0.61
1.49
***p<.001
**p<.01
Coachee> Control*
High

9. ◆PGIS-II 「Intentional Behavior」
◆Main effect：significant （F（1,28）=14.3, p<.001,ηG2=.05）
◆Interaction：no significant （p=.25） Intentional Behavior
Control
Coach
Coachee
Cohen'd
0.18
0.61
0.63
Δ
0.18
0.61
0.64
Control
Coach
Coachee
Pre
4.6
4.5
4.7
Post
4.8
4.7
5.1
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
PGIS-IIScore
Middle

10. ◆PGIS-II 「Readiness for Change」
◆Main effect：significant（F（1,28）=26.4, p<.001,ηG2=.10）
◆Interaction：significant （F（2,28）=10.7, p<.001,ηG2=.083）
Readiness Change
Control
Coach
Coachee
Cohen'd
0.06
0.55
1.52
Δ
0.07
0.58
1.38
Coachee > Control*; Coachee> Coach *
Control
Coach
Coachee
Pre
3.7
3.8
3.9
Post
3.8
4.1
5.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
PGIS-II RC Score
***p<.001
**p<.01
High

11. Control
Coach
Coachee
Pre
3.9
4.2
4.0
Post
3.9
4.4
5.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
PGIS-II FL Score ◆PGIS-II 「Planfulness」
◆Main effect：significant （F（1,28）=16.2, p<.001,ηG2=.07） ◆Interaction：significant （F（2,28）=9.9, p<.001,ηG2=.085）
Planfulness
Control
Coach
Coachee
Cohen'd
0.0
0.31
1.61
Δ
0.0
0.31
1.32
Coachee> Control*
*p<.05
**p<.01
High

12. ◆PGIS-II「Using Resource」
◆Main effect：marginally significant（p=.09）
◆Interaction：significant （F（2,28）=5.9 p<.001,ηG2=.04）
UsingResource
Control
Coach
Coachee
Cohen'd
-0.33
0.38
0.61
Δ
-0.33
0.38
0.59
† p<1
Control
Coach
Coachee
Pre
4.3
4.3
4.2
Post
4.0
4.6
4.7
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
PGIS-II UR Score
*p<.05
*p<.05
Middle

13. Discussion
■On the part ofCoachee, The scores of PGIS-II totaland PGIS-II Subscaleswerestatistically significant. ◆High effect : PGIS-II total, Planfulness, Readiness for Change ◆Middle effect: International Behavior, Using Resource ■On the part of Coach, The scores of PGIS-II totaland PGIS-II Subscales; Planfulness, Readiness Change and Using Resourcewere statistically significant. ◆Middle effect :PGIS-II total,International Behavior, Readiness for Change ◆Smalleffect : Planfulness, Using Resource 【Subject of investigation】 Why did scores of Coach change ? (Countertransference?) Could we say that Coacheswere affected by the good effect of the intervention?

14. FutureDirections (1)Using the intervention to achieve a concrete goal. (Career education, Health education program, Motivational education, Business situation) (2)Longitudinalassessment of outcomes includingfollow-up. (3)Develop intervention programs and tools to create more effective, efficient organizations. (4)Further assess the need for the interview sheet and Coaching interventionprograms. (5)It is necessary to confirm whether scores of the intervention improves more if we will provide the educationof the coach. (Ex, educate some psychological theory, leadership skills, Thinking Skills, Attentive listening, Questioning skills, etc.)

15. Why is this research important?
•The intervention led to "maximum effect with minimum intervention“. Therefore, this intervention might easily be adapted by a wide variety of populations.
•Results of Coachee showed a statistically significant increase in the scores of the PGIS-II without having the participants receive a special training of coaching skills (If we educate and give them exercises to practice, scores of coachee may haveincreased more. or, Participants already have skills.)
•This study established the validity of the tools based on Coaching Psychology (ex, the Interview sheet, PGIS-II) .

16. Solution-focused Inventory (Grant et al., 2012) ■SFI was made for a purpose of a Solution focused approach. 【12 items with 6-point Likertscale. 3 subscales】 ◆【Goal Orientation】：4itemsA focus towards desired goal states. ◆【Resource activation】: 4 itemsA focus on recognizing and utilizing strengthsand resources. ◆【Problem disengagement】：4itemsA focus on disengaging from problems and problems-focus thinking.

17. Reference material2:Research in Japan 2013.5 ～6N=277The relationship PGIS-II andSFI (Grant et al., 2012).

18. The Relationship PGIS-IIand Measurement
Solution focused
Inventory
Cognitive FlexibilityInventory
Self-Control and Self- Management Scale
Correlation
SFI Total
Alternative
Control(Reverse)
Self- Evaluation
Self- Monitoring
Self- reinforcement
PGIS-II(Total)
.74
***
.41
***
-.13
.35
***
.57
***
.42
***
IntentionalBehavior
.70
***
.44
***
-.19
*
.35
***
.56
***
.50
***
Planfulness
.71
***
.38
***
-.18
*
.39
***
.54
***
.37
***
Using Resource
.45
***
.17
*
.22
***
-.02
.28
***
.13
Readinessfor Change
.59
***
.32
***
-.18
*
.34
***
.44
***
.32
***
Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (Dennis et al., 2009) ; Self-Control and Self-Management Scale(Mezo, 2009).

19. Main Reference
•Palmer,S. &Whybrow, A. (2007). Handbook of Coaching Psychology: A guide for practitioners. Routledge.
•Robitschek, C., Ashton, M. W., Spering, C. C., Geiger, N., Byers, D., Schotts, G. C., & Thoen, M. (2012). Development and psychometric properties of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale –II. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 274-287. doi: 10.1037/a0027310

20. Main Reference 2
•Grant, A. M.,Cavanagh, M. J.,Kleitman, S.,Spence, G. B.,Lakota, M. & Yu, N. (2012). Development and validation of the solution-focused inventory. The Journal of Positive Psychology,7 (4), 334-348.
•Dennis, J. P. & Vander Wal, J. S. (2009). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Theory Research, 34, 241-353.
•Mezo, P. G. (2009). The Self-Control and Self-Management Scale (SCMS): Development of an adaptive self-regulatory coping skills instrument. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 83-93.

21. Correspondence
Yoga Tokuyoshi
◆Cognitive Psychology Lab, Graduate School of Information Science, Tohoku University, Japan
•Email: hattoxx@gmail.com
•Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hattoxx
•Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/hattoxx